Review brief: region HA spec 1 rev 5.3, round 4

You are an independent second reader. Review docs/superpowers/specs/2026-10-04-region-ha-box-placement-design.md at the commit named in the prompt, in the repository at the working directory (Go; carlos platform).

What changed and why

Your rev 5 round 3 findings (CODEX-FINDINGS-REGION-HA-REV5-3.md, B3-1 to B3-5) were all about the volume guard. Rather than patch it again, Paul ruled H19 (2026-10-06), which supersedes H15 and the volume half of H10:

• the failover fence for execution rests on a verified terminated read alone, bound to the roster's cloud identity (event, describe, later the group's history; absence never evidence): claim §7.2's own lost-box rule;
• disk evidence (the box's volume records, launch-time to last running, all DeleteOnTermination, none removed) decides only whether the dead box's park-local chores are discharged automatically (claim D5). Otherwise they stay open for an operator, and recovery waits on nothing;
• a surviving disk copy (Recycle Bin, copy, snapshot, image, detach) is a data-retention concern for the operator path, not a two-writer risk.

So rev 5.3 removes the SCP, holds, change role, guard attestation and service-role audit, and rewrites §5.9 (what counts, disk evidence for discharge, the volume record), §6 (disks), §7, §8, §9 (L2, L3), §10 and §19. §22 is the disposition table, with a note revisiting B1-3, B1-4, B2-1, B2-2 and B2-3.

Fixed: do not re-argue

Rulings H1 to H19 in §0 (H19 supersedes H15 and the volume half of H10), and the claim's own ruled text (R6 in particular: no warm reuse of a local database). Report only mechanisms that fail to honour them, are unsafe, or are missing.

Sources to check against

• Claim spec: git show origin/design-replica-ownership:docs/superpowers/specs/2026-10-02-host-lifecycle-claim-design.md (§2, §4, §5.1, §5.9 PROPOSED, §6.4, §6.4a, §6.6 PROPOSED, §7, §8, §10.1 PROPOSED).
• Claim code on main: internal/hostclaim, internal/hostguard, internal/stopevidence, internal/park, internal/genselect.
• Moves spec: /home/paulca/amadan.net/carlos/platform-moves-design/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-10-02-move-any-app-design.md (latest committed rev on that worktree's branch).
• Plan 1a's code on main, for §18 and §19's claims about it.

Focus

1. First, a disposition table for B3-1 to B3-5: resolved, moot under H19 (say whether you agree it is moot), or not resolved, each with the section that answers it.
2. Then, specifically: does any two-writer or data-loss path now depend on disk evidence? Follow every place the fence, the census (L5, L20), relocation (§5.8), §5.10, H17's confirmer and the claim's admission rules (C4, §6.4, §6.4a, P6-D2) are used, and say whether any of them still reads volume records, tags or IAM state, or would admit a writer from a surviving disk.
3. Then only new findings. Do not re-raise anything resolved in any earlier round (rounds 1 to 6 of rev 4.x, rev 5 rounds 1 to 3) unless this revision broke it; if it did, say which change broke it. Data retention of surviving disk copies is out of scope by H19.

Output

The disposition table, the answer to focus 2, then new findings ranked P1 (unsafe or blocks a plan), P2 (wrong or missing), P3 (clarity). Each: section, the problem, a concrete failing sequence, and a suggested fix. End with a verdict: ready for plan, or not ready.